I think there is some reality in the Arthurian Legend as there was a king Arthur and a place called Lancelot. But I think most of it is fantasy such as the dragon and other mythical creatures.
over many century's people have begun to tell the legend in many different ways by hundreds of books, comics, graphic novels, films, poems and a TV series. A lot of people believe that there must be at least a few facts behind this myth but according to a website there is no hard evidence that there is. this is my web link: http://historymedren.about.com/od/historicalarthur/a/truthofarthur.htm Caitlin xxx
I think I have said this before but on http://www.ancientfortresses.org/arthurian-legend.htm 'Arthurian Legend is not based on real historical evidence . The Arthurian legends were based on the books written by the clerics of the Medieval era or the Middles Ages.' This is trying to say that we have no proof that the legend exists but we do know that the legend is based on books here are some books are about the Arthurian legend and some are what it is based http://ts3.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4561840694952166&pid=1.7 http://vulpeslibris.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/9781853264634.jpg http://www.ospreyadventuresbooks.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Myth4Cover.jpg http://d202m5krfqbpi5.cloudfront.net/books/1328849993l/975702.jpg so we don't have any proof that is definite but we o have some kind of guide that something like this must be real Freya
I agree with Hannah because there is no such thing as dragons that breath fire however king Arthur definitely existed. One of the old writers said "they are not all a lie nor all true, not all fable nor all known. . . .". I think that they may be partly true but because it was all so long ago the stories will have been changed many times, so there is not really any way of knowing if they are true or not. Holly :)
Like Holly said their is no proof whether it is or isn't true. Although for many years people have been engaged by this story, some for its mythic half, as the magical city Camelot where the impossible can become possible,and some for its partial grasp on the reality of the era its based in. King arthur came from Caerleon, wales and so specialist or fanatics of the Arthurian legend believe that was the uproot for the legendary Camelot. In North cornwall,Tintagel, Castle Island is believed to be the birthplace King Arthur. http://pseudoarchaeology.org/b02/b02-pinsky.htm http://www.thisisnorthcornwall.co.uk/king_arthur.html Patience (>'-'>)... cool smiley face
"We’ve all heard stories about King Arthur of Camelot, who according to medieval legend led British forces (including his trusted Knights of the Round Table) in battle against Saxon invaders in the early sixth century. But was King Arthur actually a real person, or simply a hero of Celtic mythology? Though debate has gone on for centuries, historians have been unable to confirm that Arthur really existed. He doesn’t appear in the only surviving contemporary source about the Saxon invasion, in which the Celtic monk Gildas wrote of a real-life battle at Mons Badonicus (Badon Hills) around 500 A.D. Several hundred years later, Arthur appears for the first time in the writings of a Welsh historian named Nennius, who gave a list of 12 battles the warrior king supposedly fought. All drawn from Welsh poetry, the battles took place in so many different times and places that it would have been impossible for one man to have participated in all of them."
I think some parts of the Arthurian legends are true and some are not.Like Hannah said dragons that breath fire don't exist.But i do beleive there was a king called Arthur.its been a long time since this happened and the story has been told thousandsof times in which could've been changed many times."Was King Arthur actually a real person, or simply a hero of Celtic mythology? Though debate has gone on for centuries, historians have been unable to confirm that Arthur really existed."
I agree with everyone else and I found out that the Arthurian legend was based on some true events whereas most of it is only questionable. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Arthur he was a King during the late 5th and early 6th centuries but it is still unknown and probably will be forever whether the Arthurian legend is true or not.
You never know, the legend of Arthur could be true, or it could be a massive myth. All you need is proof. However, people sometimes don't need proof to believe stuff. They just think it is true!
I agree with Hannah. It has already been proven that dragons do NOT exist in the real world so the legend of Arthur could be a whole huge fantasy story. None of it true. However, people say that they have found some evidence that King Arthur existed!
Camelot is a castle and court associated with the legendary King Arthur. Absent in the early Arthurian material, Camelot first appeared in 12th-century French romances and eventually came to be described as the fantastic capital of Arthur's realm and a symbol of the Arthurian world. The stories locate it somewhere in Great Britain and sometimes associate it with real cities, though more usually its precise location is not revealed.
I got this extract from the website : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camelot
To sum up this comment, I personally think that there is a high possibility that King Arthur did exist in the past, but the dragons and mythical creatures didn't exist. All I need is proof then I can chose whether I believe in the legend of Arthur or not.
I agree with Sophia we don't whether it true or not because it could all just be a massive myth. I image that some parts were probably true because I think there was a place called Camelot and a prince called king Arthur who becomes a king.
However the dragon part doesn't seem that real so I did some research: From research I gathered that some people none of this is true but others believed in ever thing like dragons. Therefore I am still not sure in what I believe in. Emma :-0
I agree with Sophia and Emma that you don't need proof to see whether a myth is based on something true in life. I visited many websites and they have no proof. But I found one paragraph interesting. ' Alas, that's exactly what King Arthur is: legendary. Over the centuries, an extraordinary corpus of art has grown up around this mythic figure hundreds of books, poems, films and comics have told his story. It might be reasonable to assume that these tales are based on at least a kernel of fact. But the truth is that, as yet, no one has been able to offer any conclusive proof that a real, historical, human King Arthur ever existed in any incarnation or by any name' I think that it has some kind of moral that is based on life. Jana ♥♥
The King Arthur that we know of today is a composite of layers of different legends, written by different authors at different times. He appears in his first incarnation in the 'History of the Britons', written in 830 and attributed to a writer called Nennius
so we do have proof that there was such thing as a king named Arthur but no one knows If he pulled the sword out the stone
the web address that I used is http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/anglo_saxons/arthur_01.shtml
The idea that Arthur was not a historical king has not always been prevalent. For several hundred years, particularly among late medieval British leaders, King Arthur enjoyed a respected, even got a place in history I got this from the same website as Jana http://historymedren.about.com/od/historicalarthur/a/truthofarthur.htm
'King Arthur does not appear in literature until the 9th century. However, many believe he existed. There is no evidence to support his existence' after I read this information, I thought, even though there isn't any evidence supporting his existence, there is also no information to support him being non-existent. After I did some more research, I found out that it is likely that he existed however, like Chloe said, there is still no proof that he was who pulled the sword out of stone. Although the King Arthur part of the legend is true, there is still quite a lot about the legend that could be untrue such as the dragons and Camelot. I don't not think that the legend is true but I believe it could have started as two men competing to be king and ending up to be the well known 'sword in the stone' story that we know today. Polly☺
Was king Arthur a real person? "We’ve all heard stories about King Arthur of Camelot, who according to medieval legend led British forces (including his trusted Knights of the Round Table) in battle against Saxon invaders in the early sixth century. But was King Arthur actually a real person, or simply a hero of Celtic mythology? Though debate has gone on for centuries, historians have been unable to confirm that Arthur really existed. He doesn’t appear in the only surviving contemporary source about the Saxon invasion, in which the Celtic monk Gildas wrote of a real-life battle at Mons Badonicus (Badon Hills) around 500 A.D. Several hundred years later, Arthur appears for the first time in the writings of a Welsh historian named Nennius, who gave a list of 12 battles the warrior king supposedly fought. All drawn from Welsh poetry, the battles took place in so many different times and places that it would have been impossible for one man to have participated in all of them". www.history.com/news/ask-history/was-king-arthur-a-real-person My opinion is that he could have been real but we will never know, I believe it is another mystery of history. Catie Newton
I also agree with Sophia because a source that I read has said that there is no proof of the legend or even of Arthur.
"We’ve all heard stories about King Arthur of Camelot, who according to medieval legend led British forces (including his trusted Knights of the Round Table) in battle against Saxon invaders in the early sixth century. But was King Arthur actually a real person, or simply a hero of Celtic mythology? Though debate has gone on for centuries, historians have been unable to confirm that Arthur really existed. He doesn’t appear in the only surviving contemporary source about the Saxon invasion, in which the Celtic monk Gildas wrote of a real-life battle at Mons Badonicus (Badon Hills) around 500 A.D." ^^^^^^^ http://www.history.com/news/ask-history/was-king-arthur-a-real-person
Would it be stupid to ask about it during a history lesson? Maybe any of our history teachers could give some information on Arthur - if he was real.
There could be truth about the Athurian Legend and could be just a legend with not truth about it. The round table at Winchester was in fact made by Edward III; it was repainted by Henry VIII in the 1500s depicting Henry at the top of the table as the legendary Arthur.The Queen’s robbing room in the House of Lords of the British Parliament was redecorated with Arthurian themes after the fire of 1834, which required Parliament to be rebuilt. Monks at Glastonbury Abbey in the 1100s reportedly discovered two bodies buried in the abbey. One was a man, the other a woman with still-intact golden hair. A lead cross was also claimed to have been found that proclaimed the bodies to be that of King Arthur and Queen Guinevere.The 12th-century writer Geoffrey of Monmouth was the first to put down into prose the legend of Arthur.King Arthur is not only a British hero, but also has links to France, Iceland, Italy, Norway, and Hungry, proving how powerful the legend is.One theory of the origins of King Arthur suggests that he actually derived from the Celtic bear god Artos.
I think there could be truth about the Arthurian Legend because a stone with Arthour's name on it was found in 1998 at the castle at Tintagel in Cornwall.Also the stone has been dated to the 5th century,which is when Arthur is supposed to have lived.
I got this information from .http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Artognou_stone Rebecca Adlard :P
i believe that a reasonable majority of the legend is true, so i found facts related to truth:
'The round table at Winchester was in fact made by Edward III; it was repainted by Henry VIII in the 1500s depicting Henry at the top of the table as the legendary Arthur.'
'The Queen’s robbing room in the House of Lords of the British Parliament was redecorated with Arthurian themes after the fire of 1834, which required Parliament to be rebuilt.'
'Monks at Glastonbury Abbey in the 1100s reportedly discovered two bodies buried in the abbey. One was a man, the other a woman with still-intact golden hair. A lead cross was also claimed to have been found that proclaimed the bodies to be that of King Arthur and Queen Guinevere.'
'The 12th-century writer Geoffrey of Monmouth was the first to put down into prose the legend of Arthur.'
'King Arthur is not only a British hero, but also has links to France, Iceland, Italy, Norway, and Hungry, proving how powerful the legend is.'
'One theory of the origins of King Arthur suggests that he actually derived from the Celtic bear god Artos.'
So after looking around I believe that some of the story may be true!
Firstly although there may be lots of different versions of the story, all include this 'King Arthur' therefore this must be evidence that there is some truth in the story! also there is lots of evidence on a 'King' called Arthur that had a lot of power: "King Arthur is a legendary British leader of the late 5th and early 6th centuries, who, according to medieval histories and romances, led the defence of Britain against Saxon invaders in the early 6th century." I got this information from:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Arthur Imogen :D
I think there is some reality in the Arthurian Legend as there was a king Arthur and a place called Lancelot. But I think most of it is fantasy such as the dragon and other mythical creatures.
ReplyDeleteHannah
over many century's people have begun to tell the legend in many different ways by hundreds of books, comics, graphic novels, films, poems and a TV series. A lot of people believe that there must be at least a few facts behind this myth but according to a website there is no hard evidence that there is.
ReplyDeletethis is my web link: http://historymedren.about.com/od/historicalarthur/a/truthofarthur.htm
Caitlin xxx
I think I have said this before but on
ReplyDeletehttp://www.ancientfortresses.org/arthurian-legend.htm
'Arthurian Legend is not based on real historical evidence . The Arthurian legends were based on the books written by the clerics of the Medieval era or the Middles Ages.'
This is trying to say that we have no proof that the legend exists but we do know that the legend is based on books
here are some books are about the Arthurian legend and some are what it is based
http://ts3.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4561840694952166&pid=1.7
http://vulpeslibris.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/9781853264634.jpg
http://www.ospreyadventuresbooks.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Myth4Cover.jpg
http://d202m5krfqbpi5.cloudfront.net/books/1328849993l/975702.jpg
so we don't have any proof that is definite but we o have some kind of guide that something like this must be real
Freya
I agree with Hannah because there is no such thing as dragons that breath fire however king Arthur definitely existed. One of the old writers said "they are not all a lie nor all true, not all fable nor all known. . . .".
ReplyDeleteI think that they may be partly true but because it was all so long ago the stories will have been changed many times, so there is not really any way of knowing if they are true or not.
Holly :)
Like Holly said their is no proof whether it is or isn't true. Although for many years people have been engaged by this story, some for its mythic half, as the magical city Camelot where the impossible can become possible,and some for its partial grasp on the reality of the era its based in. King arthur came from Caerleon, wales and so specialist or fanatics of the Arthurian legend believe that was the uproot for the legendary Camelot. In North cornwall,Tintagel, Castle Island is believed to be the birthplace King Arthur.
ReplyDeletehttp://pseudoarchaeology.org/b02/b02-pinsky.htm
http://www.thisisnorthcornwall.co.uk/king_arthur.html
Patience (>'-'>)... cool smiley face
"We’ve all heard stories about King Arthur of Camelot, who according to medieval legend led British forces (including his trusted Knights of the Round Table) in battle against Saxon invaders in the early sixth century. But was King Arthur actually a real person, or simply a hero of Celtic mythology? Though debate has gone on for centuries, historians have been unable to confirm that Arthur really existed. He doesn’t appear in the only surviving contemporary source about the Saxon invasion, in which the Celtic monk Gildas wrote of a real-life battle at Mons Badonicus (Badon Hills) around 500 A.D. Several hundred years later, Arthur appears for the first time in the writings of a Welsh historian named Nennius, who gave a list of 12 battles the warrior king supposedly fought. All drawn from Welsh poetry, the battles took place in so many different times and places that it would have been impossible for one man to have participated in all of them."
ReplyDeleteI got my information from:
http://www.history.com/news/ask-history/was-king-arthur-a-real-person
Ciara :) x
I think some parts of the Arthurian legends are true and some are not.Like Hannah said dragons that breath fire don't exist.But i do beleive there was a king called Arthur.its been a long time since this happened and the story has been told thousandsof times in which could've been changed many times."Was King Arthur actually a real person, or simply a hero of Celtic mythology? Though debate has gone on for centuries, historians have been unable to confirm that Arthur really existed."
ReplyDeletehttp://www.history.com/news/ask-history/was-king-arthur-a-real-person
Amina Hussain :]
I agree with everyone else and I found out that the Arthurian legend was based on some true events whereas most of it is only questionable. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Arthur he was a King during the late 5th and early 6th centuries but it is still unknown and probably will be forever whether the Arthurian legend is true or not.
ReplyDeleteLeonie :0
You never know, the legend of Arthur could be true, or it could be a massive myth. All you need is proof. However, people sometimes don't need proof to believe stuff. They just think it is true!
ReplyDeleteI agree with Hannah. It has already been proven that dragons do NOT exist in the real world so the legend of Arthur could be a whole huge fantasy story. None of it true. However, people say that they have found some evidence that King Arthur existed!
Camelot is a castle and court associated with the legendary King Arthur. Absent in the early Arthurian material, Camelot first appeared in 12th-century French romances and eventually came to be described as the fantastic capital of Arthur's realm and a symbol of the Arthurian world. The stories locate it somewhere in Great Britain and sometimes associate it with real cities, though more usually its precise location is not revealed.
I got this extract from the website : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camelot
To sum up this comment, I personally think that there is a high possibility that King Arthur did exist in the past, but the dragons and mythical creatures didn't exist. All I need is proof then I can chose whether I believe in the legend of Arthur or not.
Thanks ;) Sophia ♥
I agree with Sophia we don't whether it true or not because it could all just be a massive myth. I image that some parts were probably true because I think there was a place called Camelot and a prince called king Arthur who becomes a king.
ReplyDeleteHowever the dragon part doesn't seem that real so I did some research:
From research I gathered that some people none of this is true but others believed in ever thing like dragons. Therefore I am still not sure in what I believe in.
Emma :-0
I agree with Sophia and Emma that you don't need proof to see whether a myth is based on something true in life. I visited many websites and they have no proof. But I found one paragraph interesting. ' Alas, that's exactly what King Arthur is: legendary. Over the centuries, an extraordinary corpus of art has grown up around this mythic figure hundreds of books, poems, films and comics have told his story. It might be reasonable to assume that these tales are based on at least a kernel of fact. But the truth is that, as yet, no one has been able to offer any conclusive proof that a real, historical, human King Arthur ever existed in any incarnation or by any name' I think that it has some kind of moral that is based on life. Jana ♥♥
ReplyDeletewebsite: http://historymedren.about.com/od/historicalarthur/a/truthofarthur.htm
ReplyDeleteJana ♥
The King Arthur that we know of today is a composite of layers of different legends, written by different authors at different times. He appears in his first incarnation in the 'History of the Britons', written in 830 and attributed to a writer called Nennius
ReplyDeleteso we do have proof that there was such thing as a king named Arthur but no one knows If he pulled the sword out the stone
the web address that I used is http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/anglo_saxons/arthur_01.shtml
Chloe :)
The idea that Arthur was not a historical king has not always been prevalent. For several hundred years, particularly among late medieval British leaders, King Arthur enjoyed a respected, even got a place in history
ReplyDeleteI got this from the same website as Jana
http://historymedren.about.com/od/historicalarthur/a/truthofarthur.htm
its siya by the way xxx
ReplyDelete'King Arthur does not appear in literature until the 9th century. However, many believe he existed. There is no evidence to support his existence' after I read this information, I thought, even though there isn't any evidence supporting his existence, there is also no information to support him being non-existent.
ReplyDeleteAfter I did some more research, I found out that it is likely that he existed however, like Chloe said, there is still no proof that he was who pulled the sword out of stone.
Although the King Arthur part of the legend is true, there is still quite a lot about the legend that could be untrue such as the dragons and Camelot.
I don't not think that the legend is true but I believe it could have started as two men competing to be king and ending up to be the well known 'sword in the stone' story that we know today.
Polly☺
Was king Arthur a real person?
ReplyDelete"We’ve all heard stories about King Arthur of Camelot, who according to medieval legend led British forces (including his trusted Knights of the Round Table) in battle against Saxon invaders in the early sixth century. But was King Arthur actually a real person, or simply a hero of Celtic mythology? Though debate has gone on for centuries, historians have been unable to confirm that Arthur really existed. He doesn’t appear in the only surviving contemporary source about the Saxon invasion, in which the Celtic monk Gildas wrote of a real-life battle at Mons Badonicus (Badon Hills) around 500 A.D. Several hundred years later, Arthur appears for the first time in the writings of a Welsh historian named Nennius, who gave a list of 12 battles the warrior king supposedly fought. All drawn from Welsh poetry, the battles took place in so many different times and places that it would have been impossible for one man to have participated in all of them".
www.history.com/news/ask-history/was-king-arthur-a-real-person
My opinion is that he could have been real but we will never know, I believe it is another mystery of history.
Catie Newton
I also agree with Sophia because a source that I read has said that there is no proof of the legend or even of Arthur.
ReplyDelete"We’ve all heard stories about King Arthur of Camelot, who according to medieval legend led British forces (including his trusted Knights of the Round Table) in battle against Saxon invaders in the early sixth century. But was King Arthur actually a real person, or simply a hero of Celtic mythology? Though debate has gone on for centuries, historians have been unable to confirm that Arthur really existed. He doesn’t appear in the only surviving contemporary source about the Saxon invasion, in which the Celtic monk Gildas wrote of a real-life battle at Mons Badonicus (Badon Hills) around 500 A.D."
^^^^^^^
http://www.history.com/news/ask-history/was-king-arthur-a-real-person
Would it be stupid to ask about it during a history lesson? Maybe any of our history teachers could give some information on Arthur - if he was real.
Anton :P
There could be truth about the Athurian Legend and could be just a legend with not truth about it. The round table at Winchester was in fact made by Edward III; it was repainted by Henry VIII in the 1500s depicting Henry at the top of the table as the legendary Arthur.The Queen’s robbing room in the House of Lords of the British Parliament was redecorated with Arthurian themes after the fire of 1834, which required Parliament to be rebuilt. Monks at Glastonbury Abbey in the 1100s reportedly discovered two bodies buried in the abbey. One was a man, the other a woman with still-intact golden hair. A lead cross was also claimed to have been found that proclaimed the bodies to be that of King Arthur and Queen Guinevere.The 12th-century writer Geoffrey of Monmouth was the first to put down into prose the legend of Arthur.King Arthur is not only a British hero, but also has links to France, Iceland, Italy, Norway, and Hungry, proving how powerful the legend is.One theory of the origins of King Arthur suggests that he actually derived from the Celtic bear god Artos.
ReplyDeleteSorry but the comment written just above me is written by Palak
ReplyDeleteI think there could be truth about the Arthurian Legend because a stone with Arthour's name on it was found in 1998 at the castle at Tintagel in Cornwall.Also the stone has been dated to the 5th century,which is when Arthur
ReplyDeleteis supposed to have lived.
I got this information from .http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Artognou_stone
Rebecca Adlard :P
i believe that a reasonable majority of the legend is true, so i found facts related to truth:
ReplyDelete'The round table at Winchester was in fact made by Edward III; it was repainted by Henry VIII in the 1500s depicting Henry at the top of the table as the legendary Arthur.'
'The Queen’s robbing room in the House of Lords of the British Parliament was redecorated with Arthurian themes after the fire of 1834, which required Parliament to be rebuilt.'
'Monks at Glastonbury Abbey in the 1100s reportedly discovered two bodies buried in the abbey. One was a man, the other a woman with still-intact golden hair. A lead cross was also claimed to have been found that proclaimed the bodies to be that of King Arthur and Queen Guinevere.'
'The 12th-century writer Geoffrey of Monmouth was the first to put down into prose the legend of Arthur.'
'King Arthur is not only a British hero, but also has links to France, Iceland, Italy, Norway, and Hungry, proving how powerful the legend is.'
'One theory of the origins of King Arthur suggests that he actually derived from the Celtic bear god Artos.'
Source: The National Geographic Channel
Nicole (:P
Like Hannah said, I think that there is some truth behind the legend.
ReplyDeleteLauren☺☻♫
So after looking around I believe that some of the story may be true!
ReplyDeleteFirstly although there may be lots of different versions of the story, all include this 'King Arthur' therefore this must be evidence that there is some truth in the story! also there is lots of evidence on a 'King' called Arthur that had a lot of power: "King Arthur is a legendary British leader of the late 5th and early 6th centuries, who, according to medieval histories and romances, led the defence of Britain against Saxon invaders in the early 6th century."
I got this information from:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Arthur
Imogen :D